Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
Personally Mary B, I think when Mary left the group, everybody understood that was the end. Scherrie and Susaye might have been hopeful for something, but Mary never intended for the group to carry on without her. As protective of the group as Mary had always been, going back to the early days, there's no way she was leaving it to a girl who had only been a Supreme for about two and a half years, and another for only about a year, and then yet a third new one. I don't believe it. I won't believe it.

You say South Africa, but wasn't it South America? I can't remember for sure. You might be right. But I think either the tour issue was either horrible mismanagement or was a Mary Wilson tour that was suspiciously booked as a Supremes tour. After all, at that point how does Mary, with no single, no album, fresh from the group, get a solo tour? She does if she [[ie, her reps) tell the promoters it's the Supremes, which of course requires Mary to hire "Supremes" in order to pass it off.

Regarding the gowns, regardless of the scenario, I'm of the assumption that the gowns would be owned by Supremes Inc, which only Mary was an owner of. So essentially anything Scherrie and Susaye wore that was purchased by Supremes Inc was on loan and not owned and when the group ceased to exist, the gowns were returned to Mary. Again, I'm assuming here, but it makes sense to me.
Ran, I absolutely agree with you. I think the Supremes carrying on without Mary was a lot of wishful thinking. They would have needed all new gowns. New management. New band? I assume The Supremes Inc. owned all of the musical charts for the musicians. Would Scherrie and Susaye had enough clout [[and money?) to build the group back up from the bottom?

LOL, and yes, I meant South America. Thank you for correcting me.